I Was Right About Something!

The Shelby Shakedown combined with the general “Scott Brown gives Republicans 41-59 majority” atmosphere seems to have finally brought the question of Senate procedure to the forefront of progressive politics. And since I’m well-known for my bad predictions, I would like to point out that this is one case of something I’ve been way ahead of the curve on. Here’s what I wrote for the Atlantic back in late 2008:

But Democrats were right to look on the nuclear option skeptically, and not because the proposed change was “reckless.” Rather, it didn’t go far enough. Every word the Republicans said about the nominees’ deserving an up-or-down vote was perfectly true—and their argument applies not just to judicial nominees, but to every other case in which the filibuster subverts the will of the majority.

Democrats no doubt see that more clearly today. Since 2006, when they won majorities in both the House and the Senate, their approval ratings have plummeted, in large part because moderates and liberals have noticed their inability to get much of anything done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to blame “the obstructionism of the Republicans,” but realistically, one can hardly blame Senate Republicans for obstructing legislation they oppose. The fault lies not with the obstructionists, but with the procedural rule that facilitates obstruction. In short, with the filibuster—a dubious tradition that encourages senators to act as spoilers rather than legislators, and that has locked the political system into semipermanent paralysis by ensuring that important decisions are endlessly deferred. It should be done away with.

As Josh Marshall alludes what we’ve seen over the past 12 months is something like a “lost year” for the Obama administration in which they never really attempted to address this squarely. Instead, they accepted the rule of 60 and focused a lot of energy on Olympia Snowe and herding conservadems. But it’s not going to work. Normally in American history what you see is that procedural change and substantive change need to go hand-in-hand.